Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

The only problem with this is there is still a massive advantage to allies with no disadvantage. This means that allies will always be greater than any mono dex (this applies to all factions that can soup) There should be some type of disadvantage to soup or some type of bonus for mono factions

Soup has exactly the similar 'advantage' over mono army than Astra Militarum has over, say Harlequins. More stuff, more choices. This is how the game has always been. So until all factions have exactly equal amount of options crying about this sort of 'advantage' is foolish. You have limited points. Disadvantage of taking one thing is that now you have no points to take another thing.

No it isn't, not everyone is like you, people like myself play for fun and part of that fun is to have a themed army, not unrealistic and boring soup. Back in 2nd edition it was fantastic, there wasn't this kind of ridiculous soup back then. I honestly don't know why people play soups other than wanting to win more than have fun. I mean winning a game of 40k is meaningless. Its like taking pride at winning a game of monopoly.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

The only problem with this is there is still a massive advantage to allies with no disadvantage. This means that allies will always be greater than any mono dex (this applies to all factions that can soup) There should be some type of disadvantage to soup or some type of bonus for mono factions

Soup has exactly the similar 'advantage' over mono army than Astra Militarum has over, say Harlequins. More stuff, more choices. This is how the game has always been. So until all factions have exactly equal amount of options crying about this sort of 'advantage' is foolish. You have limited points. Disadvantage of taking one thing is that now you have no points to take another thing.

No it isn't, not everyone is like you, people like myself play for fun and part of that fun is to have a themed army, not unrealistic and boring soup. Back in 2nd edition it was fantastic, there wasn't this kind of ridiculous soup back then. I honestly don't know why people play soups other than wanting to win more than have fun. I mean winning a game of 40k is meaningless. Its like taking pride at winning a game of monopoly.

The annoying part is there is very good thematic reasons for soup as well as practical
>Your IG is planetary guard working alongside the UM in a campaign
or
>you already have an UM army and want to slow build IG while you start to test stuff in games
The thing is both of these are very valid and real reasons why some people soup. What's annoying is the people doing this would still do it if there was some sort of drawback for playing soup. The reason you see pushback on these forums for fixing how amazing soup is, is that people who abuse it don't actually want it to be any less powerful

Asmodios wrote:

No soup has a far greater advantage.
Every codex has built-in fluff weaknesses

This is the inherent imbalance. When you can soup armies with completely different roles and strategems for those roles you will always be able to make a more diverse and robust army list than any individual codex in the game.

You will also always be able to make more diverse and robust army with Astra Militarum than with Harlequins! It is exactly the same thing! Certain codices may have certain weak areas, but this is mostly by accident than by design. Guard for example have many surprisingly powerful close combat elements.

It also develops another issue in balance and this comes with points adjustment. Any attempt to balance the soup by changing the points disproportionately hurts the money dex as compared to soup. What you get left with is a bunch of codexes that are useless except for 1-2 ingredients that are only effective in soup

Utter nonsense. It is exactly the current situation that codices are poorly balanced that leads to cherrypicking the couple of things that are accidentally undercosted. These units would be the best things in their respective codices in mono meta too.

Asmodios wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

The only problem with this is there is still a massive advantage to allies with no disadvantage. This means that allies will always be greater than any mono dex (this applies to all factions that can soup) There should be some type of disadvantage to soup or some type of bonus for mono factions

Soup has exactly the similar 'advantage' over mono army than Astra Militarum has over, say Harlequins. More stuff, more choices. This is how the game has always been. So until all factions have exactly equal amount of options crying about this sort of 'advantage' is foolish. You have limited points. Disadvantage of taking one thing is that now you have no points to take another thing.

No it isn't, not everyone is like you, people like myself play for fun and part of that fun is to have a themed army, not unrealistic and boring soup. Back in 2nd edition it was fantastic, there wasn't this kind of ridiculous soup back then. I honestly don't know why people play soups other than wanting to win more than have fun. I mean winning a game of 40k is meaningless. Its like taking pride at winning a game of monopoly.

The annoying part is there is very good thematic reasons for soup as well as practical
>Your IG is planetary guard working alongside the UM in a campaign
or
>you already have an UM army and want to slow build IG while you start to test stuff in games
The thing is both of these are very valid and real reasons why some people soup. What's annoying is the people doing this would still do it if there was some sort of drawback for playing soup. The reason you see pushback on these forums for fixing how amazing soup is, is that people who abuse it don't actually want it to be any less powerful

Ok, so you have admited the reason why you don't want Imperial Guard nerfed. All the pushback agaisnt proper Imperial Guard nerfs is because people who abuse it don't actually want it to be any less powerful.
if we are gonna assume the intentions of other posters lets go all the way.

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

No soup has a far greater advantage.
Every codex has built-in fluff weaknesses

This is the inherent imbalance. When you can soup armies with completely different roles and strategems for those roles you will always be able to make a more diverse and robust army list than any individual codex in the game.

You will also always be able to make more diverse and robust army with Astra Militarum than with Harlequins! It is exactly the same thing! Certain codices may have certain weak areas, but this is mostly by accident than by design. Guard for example have many surprisingly powerful close combat elements.

It also develops another issue in balance and this comes with points adjustment. Any attempt to balance the soup by changing the points disproportionately hurts the money dex as compared to soup. What you get left with is a bunch of codexes that are useless except for 1-2 ingredients that are only effective in soup

Utter nonsense. It is exactly the current situation that codices are poorly balanced that leads to cherrypicking the couple of things that are accidentally undercosted. These units would be the best things in their respective codices in mono meta too.

Yeah sorry but if the IG codex had anything similar to smash captains or Castellan knights you would see mono guard crushing tournaments. Guards have supplement units in there codex that give them some CC option and some large firpower but nothing like what you unlock with soup. Your argument is crushed by recent evidence like every top 10 list at nova being soup.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


No it isn't, not everyone is like you, people like myself play for fun and part of that fun is to have a themed army, not unrealistic and boring soup. Back in 2nd edition it was fantastic, there wasn't this kind of ridiculous soup back then. I honestly don't know why people play soups other than wanting to win more than have fun. I mean winning a game of 40k is meaningless. Its like taking pride at winning a game of monopoly.

Well certainly then you don't mind losing to the soup!

But no, my reasons for doing soup are purely themating and aesthetic. I am certainly not choosing the most powerful elements. I choose the models I like. I have never used any CP regenerating item or trait, no Smash or Jetbike Captains. And that's the thing, I don't want my already questionably effective imperial mess be nerfed because some people in tournaments keep bringing the most broken things from several codices.

Asmodios wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

The only problem with this is there is still a massive advantage to allies with no disadvantage. This means that allies will always be greater than any mono dex (this applies to all factions that can soup) There should be some type of disadvantage to soup or some type of bonus for mono factions

Soup has exactly the similar 'advantage' over mono army than Astra Militarum has over, say Harlequins. More stuff, more choices. This is how the game has always been. So until all factions have exactly equal amount of options crying about this sort of 'advantage' is foolish. You have limited points. Disadvantage of taking one thing is that now you have no points to take another thing.

No it isn't, not everyone is like you, people like myself play for fun and part of that fun is to have a themed army, not unrealistic and boring soup. Back in 2nd edition it was fantastic, there wasn't this kind of ridiculous soup back then. I honestly don't know why people play soups other than wanting to win more than have fun. I mean winning a game of 40k is meaningless. Its like taking pride at winning a game of monopoly.

The annoying part is there is very good thematic reasons for soup as well as practical
>Your IG is planetary guard working alongside the UM in a campaign
or
>you already have an UM army and want to slow build IG while you start to test stuff in games
The thing is both of these are very valid and real reasons why some people soup. What's annoying is the people doing this would still do it if there was some sort of drawback for playing soup. The reason you see pushback on these forums for fixing how amazing soup is, is that people who abuse it don't actually want it to be any less powerful

No one plays cheese soups to be thematic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


No it isn't, not everyone is like you, people like myself play for fun and part of that fun is to have a themed army, not unrealistic and boring soup. Back in 2nd edition it was fantastic, there wasn't this kind of ridiculous soup back then. I honestly don't know why people play soups other than wanting to win more than have fun. I mean winning a game of 40k is meaningless. Its like taking pride at winning a game of monopoly.

Well certainly then you don't mind losing to the soup!

But no, my reasons for doing soup are purely themating and aesthetic. I am certainly not choosing the most powerful elements. I choose the models I like. I have never used any CP regenerating item or trait, no Smash or Jetbike Captains. And that's the thing, I don't want my already questionably effective imperial mess be nerfed because some people in tournaments keep bringing the most broken things from several codices.

No but I have a big problem playing un-thematic boring lists. If yours is thematic and theirs is a stupid soup then it ruins the whole illusion. No one plays soups for thematic reasons and there is no thematic reasons, no armies are going to be that unorganised that units are in one big pile on with that many factions. 4 different armies all supporting one unit, I mean come on do they not have vox, with one factions saying we got this.

Asmodios wrote:

Yeah sorry but if the IG codex had anything similar to smash captains or Castellan knights you would see mono guard crushing tournaments.

Jesus on a pogo stick! It is because those units are OP and CP regeneration is OP. If Knights are flat out better than equal points worth of Astra Militarum superheavy tanks, then there is an issue with point somewhere!

 Galas wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

The only problem with this is there is still a massive advantage to allies with no disadvantage. This means that allies will always be greater than any mono dex (this applies to all factions that can soup) There should be some type of disadvantage to soup or some type of bonus for mono factions

Soup has exactly the similar 'advantage' over mono army than Astra Militarum has over, say Harlequins. More stuff, more choices. This is how the game has always been. So until all factions have exactly equal amount of options crying about this sort of 'advantage' is foolish. You have limited points. Disadvantage of taking one thing is that now you have no points to take another thing.

No it isn't, not everyone is like you, people like myself play for fun and part of that fun is to have a themed army, not unrealistic and boring soup. Back in 2nd edition it was fantastic, there wasn't this kind of ridiculous soup back then. I honestly don't know why people play soups other than wanting to win more than have fun. I mean winning a game of 40k is meaningless. Its like taking pride at winning a game of monopoly.

The annoying part is there is very good thematic reasons for soup as well as practical
>Your IG is planetary guard working alongside the UM in a campaign
or
>you already have an UM army and want to slow build IG while you start to test stuff in games
The thing is both of these are very valid and real reasons why some people soup. What's annoying is the people doing this would still do it if there was some sort of drawback for playing soup. The reason you see pushback on these forums for fixing how amazing soup is, is that people who abuse it don't actually want it to be any less powerful

Ok, so you have admited the reason why you don't want Imperial Guard nerfed. All the pushback agaisnt proper Imperial Guard nerfs is because people who abuse it don't actually want it to be any less powerful.
if we are gonna assume the intentions of other posters lets go all the way.

You have to work on your reading comprehension because I didn't say anything like that. Every person in the thread arguing against an IG nerf is because
1. It doesn't do anything to stop the actual problem
2. Hurts mono dex players which there is 0 evidence is OP
Instead, people should be looking to reign in or eliminate CP regeneration and add in some sort of drawback for soup

Every single top 10 list at nova contained either
1. soup
2. CP farm
3. both
yet not one was a mono guard list

 Crimson wrote:

It also develops another issue in balance and this comes with points adjustment. Any attempt to balance the soup by changing the points disproportionately hurts the money dex as compared to soup. What you get left with is a bunch of codexes that are useless except for 1-2 ingredients that are only effective in soup

Utter nonsense. It is exactly the current situation that codices are poorly balanced that leads to cherrypicking the couple of things that are accidentally undercosted. These units would be the best things in their respective codices in mono meta too.

This is the crux of the matter. Poor balancing both internally and externally leads to soup lists that cherry pick the best units from all available options.

Although, as 8th is currently designed with unique stratagems on a codex-by-codex basis and soup "unlocking" all of them a soup list will always be superior to a mono-list. If for nothing else than a soup player has access to 3x the number of stratagems as a mono player. If this was somehow restricted, soup would be no more or less attractive (assuming perfect balance of units across all codexes).

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Yeah sorry but if the IG codex had anything similar to smash captains or Castellan knights you would see mono guard crushing tournaments.

Jesus on a pogo stick! It is because those units are OP and CP regeneration is OP. If Knights are flat out better than equal points worth of Astra Militarum superheavy tanks, then there is an issue with point somewhere!

No because knights need to be point for point better then similar options like baneblades or mono knight players will never have a chance of winning anything. Things like knights only become OP with the edition of soup. Just like BA need captains with better options then anything guard can bring or they will never win a game

BA should be better than IG in CC
Knights should be bigger and meaner than anything IG can bring

What needs balancing is soup there needs to be a drawback of cherrypicking each codex

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


No but I have a big problem playing un-thematic boring lists. If yours is thematic and theirs is a stupid soup then it ruins the whole illusion. No one plays soups for thematic reasons and there is no thematic reasons, no armies are going to be that unorganised that units are in one big pile on with that many factions.

Why is an Inquisitorial task force consisting of several Imperial elements unthematic? Why is Ad Mech backed up by Questoris Mechanicus Knights unthematic? Why is Yvraine leading a bunch of Eldar from different factions unthematic?

Asmodios wrote:
No because knights need to be point for point better then similar options like baneblades or mono knight players will never have a chance of winning anything.

This is so wrong it hurts my head. Knights and similar options like Baneblades should be exactly balanced against each other. What makes you think Knights wouldn't have a chance of winning anything otherwise? They have a codex' worth of relics, warlord traits, households and stratagems dedicated to them. Even if the Baneblade and IK had exactly the same stats, weapons and points cost, the IK would be better because of all those juicy codex items.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
No because knights need to be point for point better then similar options like baneblades or mono knight players will never have a chance of winning anything.

This is so wrong it hurts my head. Knights and similar options like Baneblades should be exactly balanced against each other. What makes you think Knights wouldn't have a chance of winning anything otherwise? They have a codex' worth of relics, warlord traits, households and stratagems dedicated to them. Even if the Baneblade and IK had exactly the same stats, weapons and points cost, the IK would be better because of all those juicy codex items.

Yeah, so all those "juicy items" make them better....

Asmodios wrote:

No because knights need to be point for point better then similar options like baneblades or mono knight players will never have a chance of winning anything.

So if someone wants to play a IG superheavy tank company, by your logic they should just be screwed? Points exist for a reason. They should be commensurate to the effectiveness of the unit regardless of the originating codex.

Things like knights only become OP with the edition of soup.

Knights were always meant to work with allies. They were recently in same codex with Ad Mech and in the last edition had combined formation with them!

Asmodios wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
No because knights need to be point for point better then similar options like baneblades or mono knight players will never have a chance of winning anything.

This is so wrong it hurts my head. Knights and similar options like Baneblades should be exactly balanced against each other. What makes you think Knights wouldn't have a chance of winning anything otherwise? They have a codex' worth of relics, warlord traits, households and stratagems dedicated to them. Even if the Baneblade and IK had exactly the same stats, weapons and points cost, the IK would be better because of all those juicy codex items.

Yeah, so all those "juicy items" make them better....

Aye, which is what I said above. Correct me if I misunderstood but it seemed you believed Knights needed to be flat better than a Baneblade or [insert superheavy here] because otherwise Knights wouldn't win anything? This doesn't make any sense to me.

With respect to Soup armies, I'm not a terribly competitive player anymore, but even then I almost never see allies used to make cool interesting and thematic armies. It's invariably always for power reasons or "its the only way I could get to 2k". Over the last three editons the number of well thought out and coherently thematoc allied armies I have seen can be counted on one hand.


With respect to the superheavies, Knights and Baneblades are different. A Knight generally has a more skilled pilot/crew, is able to fight in melee effectively, and is highly mobile, a Baneblade or variant historically has greater raw firepower and armor/resilinecy. Broadly equivalent but very different in function.

Asmodias - the Ynnari did not have a CP farm. It had soup, and followed the same blueprint. And Ynnari do for Eldar what CP farm does for IoM. So your point is worth considering, but there is a technical incorrectness.

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

No because knights need to be point for point better then similar options like baneblades or mono knight players will never have a chance of winning anything.

So if someone wants to play a IG superheavy tank company, by your logic they should just be screwed? Points exist for a reason. They should be commensurate to the effectiveness of the unit regardless of the originating codex.

Things like knights only become OP with the edition of soup.

Knights were always meant to work with allies. They were recently in same codex with Ad Mech and in the last edition had combined formation with them!

Yes and no.... because we aren't playing chess. In order to give armies their flavor from lore, they need to exceed at certain things. I should never be able to build an IG or Tau force that's going to win in CC against khorne. The way you win is instead playing to your armies strengths. Tau has to rely on firepower and guard on overwhelming numbers. Why play Thousand sons if everyone can cast like you do? Why play nurgle if everyone is as durable as you are? Why play BA if everyone is just as good in CC? Unless you want to play mirrored armies where all you use are different looking pieces but everything plays the same you are going to need inherently different units and thus flavor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Asmodias - the Ynnari did not have a CP farm. It had soup, and followed the same blueprint. And Ynnari do for Eldar what CP farm does for IoM. So your point is worth considering, but there is a technical incorrectness.

That's why i listed 3 things that they had in common go read my previous points. Soup is the only thing that occurred in all 10

I must be getting old. Reading fail.

Maybe I am wrong every single time I post.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
No because knights need to be point for point better then similar options like baneblades or mono knight players will never have a chance of winning anything.

This is so wrong it hurts my head. Knights and similar options like Baneblades should be exactly balanced against each other. What makes you think Knights wouldn't have a chance of winning anything otherwise? They have a codex' worth of relics, warlord traits, households and stratagems dedicated to them. Even if the Baneblade and IK had exactly the same stats, weapons and points cost, the IK would be better because of all those juicy codex items.

Yeah, so all those "juicy items" make them better....

Aye, which is what I said above. Correct me if I misunderstood but it seemed you believed Knights needed to be flat better than a Baneblade or [insert superheavy here] because otherwise Knights wouldn't win anything? This doesn't make any sense to me.

Those items do make them better than baneblades its why you see IG with Knights at all the top tables instead of baneblades

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I was considering how to effect the Guard, without altering points, and I may have discovered an answer. What about:

1. Guard squads now have a ballistic skill of 5+, 4+ if no movement in last turn. Vet squads keep their 3+
2. Guard squads now need to have a commissar for every 3 squads. So you are forcing a point increase, but thematically it makes sense.
3. Scions get no changes, they cost a ton as is.
4. Every squad of Conscripts now requires a commissar, no matter the size.


This forces point increases, while maintaining lore and effectiveness. And btw, I rock guard, so these changes effect me. But still, I would be okay with these.

Thoughts?

For a newbie who plays Imperial Guard, can someone explain the problems to me? I've played 3 times, with a 1K guard list. 3 squads of guardsmen (each with a mortar team) and 3 LR tanks (plus a tank commander, psyker, and HQ commissar dude. Oh, and one basilisk too). In each game, the guardsmen are vaporized in the first turn or two. They literally do nothing. The tanks tear up the enemy. Each game, the guard has won. Once barely, it was pretty much a tie, and twice they tabled the enemy.

I reckon 1K is not the perfect sized game to get a feel for this, but are others finding that guardsmen are really good? Or is there some other aspect of playing guard that I just haven't picked up on yet?

Thanks in advance for helping this new kid out...

 Crimson wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


No but I have a big problem playing un-thematic boring lists. If yours is thematic and theirs is a stupid soup then it ruins the whole illusion. No one plays soups for thematic reasons and there is no thematic reasons, no armies are going to be that unorganised that units are in one big pile on with that many factions.

Why is an Inquisitorial task force consisting of several Imperial elements unthematic? Why is Ad Mech backed up by Questoris Mechanicus Knights unthematic? Why is Yvraine leading a bunch of Eldar from different factions unthematic?

Several units in the same board, following no army or unit cohesion. A few maybe. Do you think armies are sent into battle just mixed in a big free for all?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
With respect to Soup armies, I'm not a terribly competitive player anymore, but even then I almost never see allies used to make cool interesting and thematic armies. It's invariably always for power reasons or "its the only way I could get to 2k". Over the last three editons the number of well thought out and coherently thematoc allied armies I have seen can be counted on one hand.


With respect to the superheavies, Knights and Baneblades are different. A Knight generally has a more skilled pilot/crew, is able to fight in melee effectively, and is highly mobile, a Baneblade or variant historically has greater raw firepower and armor/resilinecy. Broadly equivalent but very different in function.

Exactly, saying they do it for thematic reasons is just ridiculous.

"For a newbie who plays Imperial Guard, can someone explain the problems to me?"

Because at the top end of the competitive scene, the IG's Knights and Smash Captains (/Custodes) tear everything up. Their opponents can't afford to devote the dakka necessary to kill 30/60/120 Guardsmen in 1 turn without getting wrecked even faster.

Yes, those units aren't IG.

Asmodios wrote:
Those items do make them better than baneblades its why you see IG with Knights at all the top tables instead of baneblades

Knights are better than Baneblades in terms of raw point efficiency right now.

Wouldn't you prefer it if they were brought more in line with each other? If a mono-AM player could take a Baneblade or another super-heavy and not feel like he's gimping his own list? Not ignoring Vaktathi's point about broad equivalence.

The same can be said for AM Infantry, (or Smash Captains, or [insert flavour of the meta unit here]), it shouldn't be a no brainer choice because they are flat better than Conscripts, there should be a decision to be made. It also shouldn't be such a no brainer to put them in a soup list.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Although, as 8th is currently designed with unique stratagems on a codex-by-codex basis and soup "unlocking" all of them a soup list will always be superior to a mono-list. If for nothing else than a soup player has access to 3x the number of stratagems as a mono player. If this was somehow restricted, soup would be no more or less attractive (assuming perfect balance of units across all codexes).

This is kinda fair point and the reason I think mono armies maybe should have couple of extra CP to compensate (We obviously first need to get rid of the infinite CP for it to matter.) Though bear in mind that in reality many stratagems are linked to specific units and you don't unlock a full suite by just bringing anything from that faction. For example, my Primaris marine army is unable to use eight of the 19 non-chapter specific stratagems as not appropriate units or equipment exist in a pure Primaris force. So in practice the situation is that whatever units you bring from whatever codex, you get at least some stratagems to use on them, which seems fine to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


Several units in the same board, following no army or unit cohesion. A few maybe. Do you think armies are sent into battle just mixed in a big free for all?

What had no cohesion was your paragraph.

These are forces that exist in the fluff. These are forces that are used in GW examples.

But yeah, than you for perfectly demonstrating the ludicrous anti-soup mentality. 'Oh no, other people like to build their armies differently than me, kill it with fire!'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
Yes and no.... because we aren't playing chess. In order to give armies their flavor from lore, they need to exceed at certain things. I should never be able to build an IG or Tau force that's going to win in CC against khorne. The way you win is instead playing to your armies strengths. Tau has to rely on firepower and guard on overwhelming numbers. Why play Thousand sons if everyone can cast like you do? Why play nurgle if everyone is as durable as you are? Why play BA if everyone is just as good in CC? Unless you want to play mirrored armies where all you use are different looking pieces but everything plays the same you are going to need inherently different units and thus flavor.

No on is saying all factions should be the same merely that they should pay appropriate cost of their effectiveness. And yeah, Guard is not gonna win against Khorne with melee, they win by shooting. But if they choose to use a part of their points for BA allies, thus having less shooting but more melee, that should be OK too.

 Crimson wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Although, as 8th is currently designed with unique stratagems on a codex-by-codex basis and soup "unlocking" all of them a soup list will always be superior to a mono-list. If for nothing else than a soup player has access to 3x the number of stratagems as a mono player. If this was somehow restricted, soup would be no more or less attractive (assuming perfect balance of units across all codexes).

This is kinda fair point and the reason I think mono armies maybe should have couple of extra CP to compensate (We obviously first need to get rid of the infinite CP for it to matter.) Though bear in mind that in reality many stratagems are linked to specific units and you don't unlock a full suite by just bringing anything from that faction. For example, my Primaris marine army is unable to use eight of the 19 non-chapter specific stratagems as not appropriate units or equipment exist in a pure Primaris force. So in practice the situation is that whatever units you bring from whatever codex, you get at least some stratagems to use on them, which seems fine to me.

True and great point. Agreed on all accounts.

 Crimson wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Although, as 8th is currently designed with unique stratagems on a codex-by-codex basis and soup "unlocking" all of them a soup list will always be superior to a mono-list. If for nothing else than a soup player has access to 3x the number of stratagems as a mono player. If this was somehow restricted, soup would be no more or less attractive (assuming perfect balance of units across all codexes).

This is kinda fair point and the reason I think mono armies maybe should have couple of extra CP to compensate (We obviously first need to get rid of the infinite CP for it to matter.) Though bear in mind that in reality many stratagems are linked to specific units and you don't unlock a full suite by just bringing anything from that faction. For example, my Primaris marine army is unable to use eight of the 19 non-chapter specific stratagems as not appropriate units or equipment exist in a pure Primaris force. So in practice the situation is that whatever units you bring from whatever codex, you get at least some stratagems to use on them, which seems fine to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


Several units in the same board, following no army or unit cohesion. A few maybe. Do you think armies are sent into battle just mixed in a big free for all?

What had no cohesion was your paragraph.

These are forces that exist in the fluff. These are forces that are used in GW examples.

But yeah, than you for perfectly demonstrating the ludicrous anti-soup mentality. 'Oh no, other people like to build their armies differently than me, kill it with fire!'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
Yes and no.... because we aren't playing chess. In order to give armies their flavor from lore, they need to exceed at certain things. I should never be able to build an IG or Tau force that's going to win in CC against khorne. The way you win is instead playing to your armies strengths. Tau has to rely on firepower and guard on overwhelming numbers. Why play Thousand sons if everyone can cast like you do? Why play nurgle if everyone is as durable as you are? Why play BA if everyone is just as good in CC? Unless you want to play mirrored armies where all you use are different looking pieces but everything plays the same you are going to need inherently different units and thus flavor.

No on is saying all factions should be the same merely that they should pay appropriate cost of their effectiveness. And yeah, Guard is not gonna win against Khorne with melee, they win by shooting. But if they choose to use a part of their points for BA allies, thus having less shooting but more melee, that should be OK too.

Yeah, it should be ok but there also needs to be a downside to taking that BA melle into your list or you end up with...... well what we have now. As of right now imperium chas and eldar have huge advantages by being able to plug up codex weaknesses with soup while armies like Tau do not have this option

Asmodios wrote:

Yeah, it should be ok but there also needs to be a downside to taking that BA melle into your list or you end up with...... well what we have now. As of right now imperium chas and eldar have huge advantages by being able to plug up codex weaknesses with soup while armies like Tau do not have this option

The downside should be that by using those points for melee, you thus have less points for shooting. If the end results are not balanced, then the point costs are wrong.

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Yeah, it should be ok but there also needs to be a downside to taking that BA melle into your list or you end up with...... well what we have now. As of right now imperium chas and eldar have huge advantages by being able to plug up codex weaknesses with soup while armies like Tau do not have this option

The downside should be that by using those points for melee, you thus have less points for shooting. If the end results are not balanced, then the point costs are wrong.

The issue is one of context. If I have access to a ton of powerful shooting, thats one thing. If I have access to a ton of powerful CC or resiliency buffs, that's one thing. I have access to both, then I can leverage that to create something more powerful than either in their original context, building on synergy that otherwise may not exist. These things are not always straight conversions, and there is a reason different armies often pay different points for often very similar or identical things. Points costs do not, and cannot be expected to, cover that by themselves.